Re: [PATCH 2/2] tests: make test_must_fail fail on missing commands
- From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
- Date
- Aug 31, 2010, 18:08 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20100831180847.GC15020@sigill.intra.peff.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <20100831172657.GP2315@burratino>
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:26:57PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Show 6 quoted lines
> Jeff King wrote: > > > The point of it is to run a command that produces failure. A > > missing command is more likely an error in the test script > > Makes sense. Here's the corresponding change for test_might_fail.
I think this is probably worth doing. Unless somebody is doing something silly like:
test_might_fail command_that_might_exist
But that seems a pretty contrived scenario (I am imagining something like "call sync now, but if we don't have it, don't fail". But in the test scripts that seems unlikely).
-Peff